Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C)Na834/2W9 A CBHALLA AND ORS.
Through: Mr.HarshPnyaSingh,Adv.
W.P.(C)Na834/2W9 A CBHALLA AND ORS.
Through: Mr.HarshPnyaSingh,Adv.
VERSUS
„ , , northDELHIMUNICIPALCORPORATION Respondent
Through: Mr.TarunDiwan,Standingcounsel.
HON^EMR.JUSTICEANUPJAIRAMBHAMBHANI
0/„ 25.01.2019
CM APPL.Nn.m9l2Ql^ exemption)
Allowed,subjecttojustexceptions.
Applicationstandsdisposed of.
-''T"pSrareresidentsofAshokaEnclave,Peera Garhi,New Delhi and are aggrieved by alleged nnauthorized construction and encroachmentin theircolony.
Mr.TarunDiwan,learnedStandingCounselfortherespondent/North
DMCappears and statesthatsincethe grievance raised pertainsto vanous blocksofthecolonyandnosurveyofindividualinstancesofencroachmettt and/or unauthorised construction has been carried-out,the respondent w. havetoundertakesuchexercisebeforeinitiatinganyaction.
In the context of the petitioners' grievance, it transptres that in compliance oforders ofthe Supreme Courtin
Writ Petition(Civil)NO. 4677/1985 titled M.C. Mehta vs. Union ofMia & Ors. v,de Ofi^
Memorandum dated 25.04.2018the Delhi Development Aulhonty(DDA) hasconstitutedaSpecialTaskForcetocompmhensivelyaddressvioations
[■
2019:DHC:7898 Delhi-2021 relatinginteraliatoconstructionactivityandlanduseinD
Vide another Office Memorandum dated 23.05.2018 the DDA has also formulatedanactionplanformonitoringconstmctionactivitiesinDelh,and forfixing responsibility in case ofviolations ofthe Unified Building Bye
Laws and the MasterPlan.
Vide order dated 20.09.2018 made in
Writ Petition (Civil) NO. 1807/2018titledDefender vs. GovernmentofNCTofDelhi& Ors.(and connected matters)bytheDivisionBench ofthisCourtheadedbyHon'ble the ChiefJustice,the Courthas held thatin view ofthe setting-up ofthe
Special Task Force under directions of the Supreme Court it is not appropriate for our court to exercise jurisdiction in matters relatmg to unauthorisedconstruction;andhasdisposedofsuchmattersgrantingliberty
.0thepetitionerstoraisetheirgrievancesbeforetheSpecialTaskForceso constituted,in accordancewiththeschemeandprocedureformulatedunder the aforesaidtwo Office Memorandums.
By orderdated24.09.2018 madeinasubsequentmatter,being nt
Petition(Civil)No.9938/2018 titled Stnesh Chand Goel vs. EastDelhi
MunicipalCorporation,theDivisionBench hasfollowed its earlierorder dated20.09.2018inWritPetition(Civil)No.1807/2018,similarlydisposmg ofthe writ petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to file a compam beforetheSpecialTaskForce.IaminformedthattheDivisionBench has subsequentlyalsomadesimilarordersinothermatters.
To be sure,the petitions that were subject matter ofthe aforesa proceedingsbeforetheDivisionBenchwerepetitionsfiledmpublicinterest andotherwise-andrelatedtocontraventionnotonlyofsanctionedbuild^
Act, 1957, the Delhi Development Authority Act, 1957, the New Delhi
Municipal Council Act, 1994,the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological
Sites and Remains Act,1958 and the Ancient MonumentsPreservation Act, 1904 as also encroachmenton public land etc.
Ergo,the binding observation ofthe Division Bench that in view of the setting-up of the Special Task Force under directions ofthe Supreme
Court it is not appropriate for our court to exercise jurisdiction in such matters, must not in my view, be restricted only to matters relating to unauthorised construction but mustalso applyto allother matters which the
Special Task Force is mandated to deal with, including misuse and encroachment. In many instances, it may well be that there are multiple violations ofBuilding Bye Laws and Master Plan in the same property,say unauthorised construction,encroachment as well as misuser ofpremises;in which casethe same agency mustbe leftto deal with such connected issues.
I should think it is for this reason that the objectives ofthe Special Task
Force as enunciated in Office Memorandum dated 25th April 2018 include inter-alia matters relating to encroachment, unauthorised construction and use violations.
The aforesaid Special Task Force is a 15-member outfit with representation of the highest level from all concerned municipal, civic, revenue and law enforcement agencies of Delhi; and is therefore ideally suited for multi-agency, coordinated action against the rampant malaise of breach of various laws, rules and regulations governing building construction and land-use in Delhi.
Iaminformed thatas ofdatethe Special Task Force even has its own
H thereby making it even easier for parties to take their grievances beforethe said agency.
Accordingly,Iam ofthe view thatthe correctcourse ofaction inthis matter also would beto dispose ofthe present writpetition,giving libertyto the petitioner to approach the Special Task Force in accordance with the policy and procedure laid down for the purpose in DDA's Office
Memorandums dated 25.04.2018 and 23.05.2018 and avail the said alternate,efficaciousremedy.
This writpetition is disposed ofin the aboveterms.
Pending applications,ifany,are also disposed of.
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI,J.
JANUARY 25,2019/m/
Through: Mr.TarunDiwan,Standingcounsel.
HON^EMR.JUSTICEANUPJAIRAMBHAMBHANI
0/„ 25.01.2019
CM APPL.Nn.m9l2Ql^ exemption)
Allowed,subjecttojustexceptions.
Applicationstandsdisposed of.
-''T"pSrareresidentsofAshokaEnclave,Peera Garhi,New Delhi and are aggrieved by alleged nnauthorized construction and encroachmentin theircolony.
Mr.TarunDiwan,learnedStandingCounselfortherespondent/North
DMCappears and statesthatsincethe grievance raised pertainsto vanous blocksofthecolonyandnosurveyofindividualinstancesofencroachmettt and/or unauthorised construction has been carried-out,the respondent w. havetoundertakesuchexercisebeforeinitiatinganyaction.
In the context of the petitioners' grievance, it transptres that in compliance oforders ofthe Supreme Courtin
Writ Petition(Civil)NO. 4677/1985 titled M.C. Mehta vs. Union ofMia & Ors. v,de Ofi^
Memorandum dated 25.04.2018the Delhi Development Aulhonty(DDA) hasconstitutedaSpecialTaskForcetocompmhensivelyaddressvioations
[■
2019:DHC:7898 Delhi-2021 relatinginteraliatoconstructionactivityandlanduseinD
Vide another Office Memorandum dated 23.05.2018 the DDA has also formulatedanactionplanformonitoringconstmctionactivitiesinDelh,and forfixing responsibility in case ofviolations ofthe Unified Building Bye
Laws and the MasterPlan.
Vide order dated 20.09.2018 made in
Writ Petition (Civil) NO. 1807/2018titledDefender vs. GovernmentofNCTofDelhi& Ors.(and connected matters)bytheDivisionBench ofthisCourtheadedbyHon'ble the ChiefJustice,the Courthas held thatin view ofthe setting-up ofthe
Special Task Force under directions of the Supreme Court it is not appropriate for our court to exercise jurisdiction in matters relatmg to unauthorisedconstruction;andhasdisposedofsuchmattersgrantingliberty
.0thepetitionerstoraisetheirgrievancesbeforetheSpecialTaskForceso constituted,in accordancewiththeschemeandprocedureformulatedunder the aforesaidtwo Office Memorandums.
By orderdated24.09.2018 madeinasubsequentmatter,being nt
Petition(Civil)No.9938/2018 titled Stnesh Chand Goel vs. EastDelhi
MunicipalCorporation,theDivisionBench hasfollowed its earlierorder dated20.09.2018inWritPetition(Civil)No.1807/2018,similarlydisposmg ofthe writ petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to file a compam beforetheSpecialTaskForce.IaminformedthattheDivisionBench has subsequentlyalsomadesimilarordersinothermatters.
To be sure,the petitions that were subject matter ofthe aforesa proceedingsbeforetheDivisionBenchwerepetitionsfiledmpublicinterest andotherwise-andrelatedtocontraventionnotonlyofsanctionedbuild^
Act, 1957, the Delhi Development Authority Act, 1957, the New Delhi
Municipal Council Act, 1994,the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological
Sites and Remains Act,1958 and the Ancient MonumentsPreservation Act, 1904 as also encroachmenton public land etc.
Ergo,the binding observation ofthe Division Bench that in view of the setting-up of the Special Task Force under directions ofthe Supreme
Court it is not appropriate for our court to exercise jurisdiction in such matters, must not in my view, be restricted only to matters relating to unauthorised construction but mustalso applyto allother matters which the
Special Task Force is mandated to deal with, including misuse and encroachment. In many instances, it may well be that there are multiple violations ofBuilding Bye Laws and Master Plan in the same property,say unauthorised construction,encroachment as well as misuser ofpremises;in which casethe same agency mustbe leftto deal with such connected issues.
I should think it is for this reason that the objectives ofthe Special Task
Force as enunciated in Office Memorandum dated 25th April 2018 include inter-alia matters relating to encroachment, unauthorised construction and use violations.
The aforesaid Special Task Force is a 15-member outfit with representation of the highest level from all concerned municipal, civic, revenue and law enforcement agencies of Delhi; and is therefore ideally suited for multi-agency, coordinated action against the rampant malaise of breach of various laws, rules and regulations governing building construction and land-use in Delhi.
Iaminformed thatas ofdatethe Special Task Force even has its own
H thereby making it even easier for parties to take their grievances beforethe said agency.
Accordingly,Iam ofthe view thatthe correctcourse ofaction inthis matter also would beto dispose ofthe present writpetition,giving libertyto the petitioner to approach the Special Task Force in accordance with the policy and procedure laid down for the purpose in DDA's Office
Memorandums dated 25.04.2018 and 23.05.2018 and avail the said alternate,efficaciousremedy.
This writpetition is disposed ofin the aboveterms.
Pending applications,ifany,are also disposed of.
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI,J.
JANUARY 25,2019/m/
JUDGMENT